You are here

Decades after the deployment of the first peacekeeping operation (PKO)—United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)—in 1948, the United Nations (UN) cannot boast of too many successes. The continued relevance of UN PKOs has thus come under criticism. In order to determine whether UN PKOs are still relevant, it is necessary to obtain a clear understanding of the reasons/factors for their success and failure, and thereafter assess their performance.

On 19 December 2017, three days ahead of the scheduled 20th Round of Indo-China border talk between the Indian National Security Advisor (NSA), Ajit Doval, and China’s State Councillor, Yang Jiechi (the details of which are yet to be made public), the daily Times of India reported a statement by China that the Doklam standoff posed a ‘major test’ for the bilateral ties and that lessons should be learnt from it to avoid a similar situation of its kind in the future.1 China’s statement was made in the context of the face-off between Indian Army and China’s People’s Liberation Army (PL

The nature of the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations has evolved considerably since 1948. Most contemporary conflict zones are full of violence, resulting in a large number of civilian casualties. So much so, that even the peacekeepers have now become major targets of violence and asymmetric threats.

Nations from the developed world have rarely participated in complex and difficult UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs) while those from the developing world have rich peacekeeping experience. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is a rare exception among peacekeeping missions as it includes peacekeepers from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), along with Western military involvement. NATO members’ involvement in UNIFIL resulted in unusual structures and operational philosophy, and adjusting and adapting to this was difficult for non-Western participants.